MOORE v. CCCFJ

Plaintiff
Loresha Moore seeks to bring an amended civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Camden County Correctional Facility (“CCCF”).
Amended Complaint, Docket Entry 5. On March 1, 2017,
Plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and Plaintiff was granted thirty
days to file an amended complaint. Docket Entry 4. Plaintiff
timely filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2017.

At this
time, the Court must review the amended complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. For the reasons set forth below it is clear from the
complaint that the claim arose more than two years before the
complaint was filed. It is therefore barred by the two-year
statute of limitations that governs claims of
unconstitutional conduct under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court will therefore dismiss the amended complaint with
prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

II.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
alleges that from June 2005 to March 2006, she was detained
in the CCCF. Amended Complaint § III. She further
states: “Put into cell with other inmates slept on the
floor by the toilet and hit my head and neck, and back
repeatedly fell off the bunk onto me.” Id.

III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Section
1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints prior to
service of the summons and complaint in cases in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court
must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous,
is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. This action is subject to sua
sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis.

Plaintiff's
amended complaint alleges that she experienced
unconstitutional conditions of confinement while she was
detained in the CCCF from June 2005 to March 2006. Civil
rights claims under § 1983 are governed by New
Jersey's limitations period for personal injury and must
be brought within two years of the claim's accrual.
See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985);
Dique v. New Jersey State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185
(3d Cir. 2010). “Under federal law, a cause of action
accrues ‘when the plaintiff knew or should have known
of the injury upon which the action is based.'”
Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 773
F.3d 472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Kach v. Hose,
589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009)).

The
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement at CCCF,
namely the alleged overcrowding, would have been immediately
apparent to Plaintiff at the time of her detention;
therefore, the statute of limitations for Plaintiff's
claims expired, at the latest, in 2008, well before this
complaint was filed in 2016. Plaintiff has filed her lawsuit
too late. Although the Court may toll, or extend, the statute
of limitations in the interests of justice, certain
circumstances must be present before it can do so. Tolling is
not warranted in this case because the state has not
“actively misled” Plaintiff as to the existence
of her cause of action, there are no extraordinary
circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from filing her claim,
and there is nothing to indicate Plaintiff filed her claim on
time but in the wrong forum. See Omar v. Blackman,
590 F.App'x 162, 166 (3d Cir. 2014).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As it
is clear from the face of the amended complaint that more
than two years have passed since Plaintiff&#39;s claims
accrued, the complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning
she may not file an amended complaint concerning the events
of 2005 to 2006. Ostuni v. Wa Wa&#39;s Mart, 532
F.App'x 110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013) (per ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.